Mandela was not “..one of democracy's greatest champions.” Mandela was a collectivist, sacrifice-the-individual-for-the-greater-good type of character. He was also a terrorist and a man of violence, with connections to Soviet Russia. He was ominously conciliatory with the thug, Robert Mugabe and other African dictators. No room for individual freedom and ability there.

Just because apartheid was foul doesn’t make Mandela a person to look up to. The reverence comes from mass hysteria, and the idea that anything was better than being governed by a white minority

However, le Clerk was proof that much was changing, and apartheid was on its last legs. But, the transition was rushed because of sentimental do-gooding, and Mandela and his friends proved what most people knew – they were not ready to govern their own country. The mass chanting and singing, the child-like beaming into camera lenses of people who think Mandela was a “saint” has been a sad indictment of another politician con-man.

While it was important for apartheid to go, and for black South Africans to have the same say in choosing government as white South Africans did, the rush for change showed that ‘anything’ was not better than being governed by a white minority. The mining companies fled; the knowledge and expertise fled, and black South Africans are no better or worse off than they used to be. Symbolism – which is all the political change in South Africa was – does not bring prosperity, provide housing and health care, education and jobs.

Much of the criticism of previous white governments was true; apartheid was obnoxious; but with the likes of Mandela and those left behind to ‘run’ the country, South Africa is well on the way to becoming like the rest of hopeless Africa.

Mandela was indeed great - as is Des Tutu.

But my own preference is Ndabaningi Sithole - not only for his achievements, as a churchmen and freedom fighter of nearby Zimbabwe, but for his evocative name.